We Keep Coding

When given N num of steps and M max possible steps return the total number possible sequences where the person can go (higher) from level 0 to level N

I feel like this is very similar to the staircase problem where you can use the fibonacci recursive call, but what's throwing me off is the second argument of M steps, I'm not sure how to apply it. Help?
I can solve this very similarly to the staircase problem which is just a fibonacci application then transitioning using that fib helper function.
I can't seem to get it at all to work
function numSteps(n, m) {
if (n === 0) return 1
let begin = 0
let end = 1
let result = 0
for (let i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
while (m < n) {
result = begin + end
begin = end
end = result
}
}
return result
};
console.log(numSteps(2, 6))
function steps(n, m) {
let table = new Array(n + 1).fill(false);
table[0] = true;
let total = 0
for (let i = 0; i < table.length; i++) {
if (table[i] === true) {
for (let j = 1; j <= m; j++) {
table[j] = true
total += 1
}
}
}
return total;
}

Generators are probably the best way to solve permutation and combination problems in JavaScript. You will learn a lot by tracing the evaluation step-by-step on paper or in a text editor -
const waysToClimb = function* (n, m, seq = [])
{ if (n > 0)
for (let i = 1; i <= m; i++)
if (i > n)
return
else
yield* waysToClimb (n - i, m, [ i, ...seq ])
else
yield seq
}
const result =
Array.from (waysToClimb (10, 3))
console.log (JSON.stringify (result))
// [ [ 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 ]
// , ...
// , [ 1, 3, 3, 3 ]
// ]

Here is a recursive solution in Ruby.
def steps(max_steps, steps_remaining)
(1..max_steps).sum do |n|
case n <=> steps_remaining
when -1
steps(max_steps, steps_remaining-n)
when 0
1
else
0
end
end
end
steps(2, 4)
#=> 5
steps(3, 10)
#=> 274
steps(5, 15)
#=> 13624
require 'time'
t = Time.now
puts steps(8, 25)
16_190_208
(Time.now-t).round
#=> 22 seconds
In the first example the 5 possible sequences are as follows:
[[1,1,1,1], [1,1,2], [1,2,1], [2,1,1], [2,2]]

How to get the nth value of a JavaScript generator?

How can I get the nth value of a generator?
function *index() {
let x = 0;
while(true)
yield x++;
}
// the 1st value
let a = index();
console.log(a.next().value); // 0
// the 3rd value
let b = index();
b.next();
b.next();
console.log(b.next().value); // 2
// the nth value?
let c = index();
let n = 10;
console.log(...); // 9

You can define an enumeration method like in python:
function *enumerate(it, start) {
start = start || 0;
for(let x of it)
yield [start++, x];
}
and then:
for(let [n, x] of enumerate(index()))
if(n == 6) {
console.log(x);
break;
}
http://www.es6fiddle.net/ia0rkxut/
Along the same lines, one can also reimplement pythonic range and islice:
function *range(start, stop, step) {
while(start < stop) {
yield start;
start += step;
}
}
function *islice(it, start, stop, step) {
let r = range(start || 0, stop || Number.MAX_SAFE_INTEGER, step || 1);
let i = r.next().value;
for(var [n, x] of enumerate(it)) {
if(n === i) {
yield x;
i = r.next().value;
}
}
}
and then:
console.log(islice(index(), 6, 7).next().value);
http://www.es6fiddle.net/ia0s6amd/
A real-world implementation would require a bit more work, but you got the idea.

As T.J. Crowder pointed out, there is no way to get to the nth element directly, as the values are generated on demand and only the immediate value can be retrieved with the next function. So, we need to explicitly keep track of the number of items consumed.
The only solution is using a loop and I prefer iterating it with for..of.
We can create a function like this
function elementAt(generator, n) {
"use strict";
let i = 0;
if (n < 0) {
throw new Error("Invalid index");
}
for (let value of generator) {
if (i++ == n) {
return value;
}
}
throw new Error("Generator has fewer than " + n + " elements");
}
and then invoke it like this
console.log(elementAt(index(), 10));
// 10
Another useful function might be, take, which would allow you to take first n elements from a generator, like this
function take(generator, n) {
"use strict";
let i = 1,
result = [];
if (n <= 0) {
throw new Error("Invalid index");
}
for (let value of generator) {
result.push(value);
if (i++ == n) {
return result;
}
}
throw new Error("Generator has fewer than " + n + " elements");
}
console.log(take(index(), 10))
// [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

A simple loop will do:
let n = 10,
iter = index();
while (--n > 0) iter.next();
console.log(iter.next().value); // 9

You could create an array of size n, and use Array.from and its second argument to fetch the values you need. So assuming iter is the iterator from generator gen:
var iter = gen();
Then the first n values can be fetched as follows:
var values = Array.from(Array(n), iter.next, iter).map(o => o.value)
...and when you are only interested in the nth value, you could skip the map part, and do:
var value = Array.from(Array(n), iter.next, iter).pop().value
Or:
var value = [...Array(n)].reduce(iter.next.bind(iter), 1).value
The downside is that you still (temporarily) allocate an array of size n.

I wanted to avoid unnecessary creation of arrays or other intermediate values. Here's what my implementation of nth ended up like -
function nth (iter, n)
{ for (const v of iter)
if (--n < 0)
return v
}
Following the examples in the original question -
// the 1st value
console.log(nth(index(), 0))
// the 3rd value
console.log(nth(index(), 2))
// the 10th value
console.log(nth(index(), 9))
0
2
9
For finite generators, if the index is out of bounds the result will be undefined -
function* foo ()
{ yield 1
yield 2
yield 3
}
console.log(nth(foo(), 99))
undefined
Expand the snippet below to verify the results in your browser -
function *index ()
{ let x = 0
while (true)
yield x++
}
function* foo ()
{ yield 1
yield 2
yield 3
}
function nth (iter, n) {
for (const v of iter)
if (--n < 0)
return v
}
// the 1st value
console.log(nth(index(), 0))
// the 3rd value
console.log(nth(index(), 2))
// the 10th value?
console.log(nth(index(), 9))
// out-of-bounds?
console.log(nth(foo(), 99))

Improve Code to find Prime Numbers within 1-100 [duplicate]

Want to improve this post? Provide detailed answers to this question, including citations and an explanation of why your answer is correct. Answers without enough detail may be edited or deleted.
In Javascript how would i find prime numbers between 0 - 100? i have thought about it, and i am not sure how to find them. i thought about doing x % x but i found the obvious problem with that.
this is what i have so far:
but unfortunately it is the worst code ever.
var prime = function (){
var num;
for (num = 0; num < 101; num++){
if (num % 2 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 3 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 4=== 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 5 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 6 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 7 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 8 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 9 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 10 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 11 === 0){
break;
}
else if (num % 12 === 0){
break;
}
else {
return num;
}
}
};
console.log(prime());

Here's an example of a sieve implementation in JavaScript:
function getPrimes(max) {
var sieve = [], i, j, primes = [];
for (i = 2; i <= max; ++i) {
if (!sieve[i]) {
// i has not been marked -- it is prime
primes.push(i);
for (j = i << 1; j <= max; j += i) {
sieve[j] = true;
}
}
}
return primes;
}
Then getPrimes(100) will return an array of all primes between 2 and 100 (inclusive). Of course, due to memory constraints, you can't use this with large arguments.
A Java implementation would look very similar.

Here's how I solved it. Rewrote it from Java to JavaScript, so excuse me if there's a syntax error.
function isPrime (n)
{
if (n < 2) return false;
/**
* An integer is prime if it is not divisible by any prime less than or equal to its square root
**/
var q = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(n));
for (var i = 2; i <= q; i++)
{
if (n % i == 0)
{
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
A number, n, is a prime if it isn't divisible by any other number other than by 1 and itself. Also, it's sufficient to check the numbers [2, sqrt(n)].

Here is the live demo of this script: http://jsfiddle.net/K2QJp/
First, make a function that will test if a single number is prime or not. If you want to extend the Number object you may, but I decided to just keep the code as simple as possible.
function isPrime(num) {
if(num < 2) return false;
for (var i = 2; i < num; i++) {
if(num%i==0)
return false;
}
return true;
}
This script goes through every number between 2 and 1 less than the number and tests if there is any number in which there is no remainder if you divide the number by the increment. If there is any without a remainder, it is not prime. If the number is less than 2, it is not prime. Otherwise, it is prime.
Then make a for loop to loop through the numbers 0 to 100 and test each number with that function. If it is prime, output the number to the log.
for(var i = 0; i < 100; i++){
if(isPrime(i)) console.log(i);
}

Whatever the language, one of the best and most accessible ways of finding primes within a range is using a sieve.
Not going to give you code, but this is a good starting point.
For a small range, such as yours, the most efficient would be pre-computing the numbers.

I have slightly modified the Sieve of Sundaram algorithm to cut the unnecessary iterations and it seems to be very fast.
This algorithm is actually two times faster than the most accepted #Ted Hopp's solution under this topic. Solving the 78498 primes between 0 - 1M takes like 20~25 msec in Chrome 55 and < 90 msec in FF 50.1. Also #vitaly-t's get next prime algorithm looks interesting but also results much slower.
This is the core algorithm. One could apply segmentation and threading to get superb results.
"use strict";
function primeSieve(n){
var a = Array(n = n/2),
t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*n)-2)/4,
u = 0,
r = [];
for(var i = 1; i <= t; i++){
u = (n-i)/(1+2*i);
for(var j = i; j <= u; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j] = true;
}
for(var i = 0; i<= n; i++) !a[i] && r.push(i*2+1);
return r;
}
var primes = [];
console.time("primes");
primes = primeSieve(1000000);
console.timeEnd("primes");
console.log(primes.length);
The loop limits explained:
Just like the Sieve of Erasthotenes, the Sieve of Sundaram algorithm also crosses out some selected integers from the list. To select which integers to cross out the rule is i + j + 2ij ≤ n where i and j are two indices and n is the number of the total elements. Once we cross out every i + j + 2ij, the remaining numbers are doubled and oddified (2n+1) to reveal a list of prime numbers. The final stage is in fact the auto discounting of the even numbers. It's proof is beautifully explained here.
Sieve of Sundaram is only fast if the loop indices start and end limits are correctly selected such that there shall be no (or minimal) redundant (multiple) elimination of the non-primes. As we need i and j values to calculate the numbers to cross out, i + j + 2ij up to n let's see how we can approach.
i) So we have to find the the max value i and j can take when they are equal. Which is 2i + 2i^2 = n. We can easily solve the positive value for i by using the quadratic formula and that is the line with t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*n)-2)/4,
j) The inner loop index j should start from i and run up to the point it can go with the current i value. No more than that. Since we know that i + j + 2ij = n, this can easily be calculated as u = (n-i)/(1+2*i);
While this will not completely remove the redundant crossings it will "greatly" eliminate the redundancy. For instance for n = 50 (to check for primes up to 100) instead of doing 50 x 50 = 2500, we will do only 30 iterations in total. So clearly, this algorithm shouldn't be considered as an O(n^2) time complexity one.
i j v
1 1 4
1 2 7
1 3 10
1 4 13
1 5 16
1 6 19
1 7 22 <<
1 8 25
1 9 28
1 10 31 <<
1 11 34
1 12 37 <<
1 13 40 <<
1 14 43
1 15 46
1 16 49 <<
2 2 12
2 3 17
2 4 22 << dupe #1
2 5 27
2 6 32
2 7 37 << dupe #2
2 8 42
2 9 47
3 3 24
3 4 31 << dupe #3
3 5 38
3 6 45
4 4 40 << dupe #4
4 5 49 << dupe #5
among which there are only 5 duplicates. 22, 31, 37, 40, 49. The redundancy is around 20% for n = 100 however it increases to ~300% for n = 10M. Which means a further optimization of SoS bears the potentital to obtain the results even faster as n grows. So one idea might be segmentation and to keep n small all the time.
So OK.. I have decided to take this quest a little further.
After some careful examination of the repeated crossings I have come to the awareness of the fact that, by the exception of i === 1 case, if either one or both of the i or j index value is among 4,7,10,13,16,19... series, a duplicate crossing is generated. Then allowing the inner loop to turn only when i%3-1 !== 0, a further cut down like 35-40% from the total number of the loops is achieved. So for instance for 1M integers the nested loop's total turn count dropped to like 1M from 1.4M. Wow..! We are talking almost O(n) here.
I have just made a test. In JS, just an empty loop counting up to 1B takes like 4000ms. In the below modified algorithm, finding the primes up to 100M takes the same amount of time.
I have also implemented the segmentation part of this algorithm to push to the workers. So that we will be able to use multiple threads too. But that code will follow a little later.
So let me introduce you the modified Sieve of Sundaram probably at it's best when not segmented. It shall compute the primes between 0-1M in about 15-20ms with Chrome V8 and Edge ChakraCore.
"use strict";
function primeSieve(n){
var a = Array(n = n/2),
t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*n)-2)/4,
u = 0,
r = [];
for(var i = 1; i < (n-1)/3; i++) a[1+3*i] = true;
for(var i = 2; i <= t; i++){
u = (n-i)/(1+2*i);
if (i%3-1) for(var j = i; j < u; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j] = true;
}
for(var i = 0; i< n; i++) !a[i] && r.push(i*2+1);
return r;
}
var primes = [];
console.time("primes");
primes = primeSieve(1000000);
console.timeEnd("primes");
console.log(primes.length);
Well... finally I guess i have implemented a sieve (which is originated from the ingenious Sieve of Sundaram) such that it's the fastest JavaScript sieve that i could have found over the internet, including the "Odds only Sieve of Eratosthenes" or the "Sieve of Atkins". Also this is ready for the web workers, multi-threading.
Think it this way. In this humble AMD PC for a single thread, it takes 3,300 ms for JS just to count up to 10^9 and the following optimized segmented SoS will get me the 50847534 primes up to 10^9 only in 14,000 ms. Which means 4.25 times the operation of just counting. I think it's impressive.
You can test it for yourself;
console.time("tare");
for (var i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++);
console.timeEnd("tare");
And here I introduce you to the segmented Seieve of Sundaram at it's best.
"use strict";
function findPrimes(n){
function primeSieve(g,o,r){
var t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*(g+o))-2)/4,
e = 0,
s = 0;
ar.fill(true);
if (o) {
for(var i = Math.ceil((o-1)/3); i < (g+o-1)/3; i++) ar[1+3*i-o] = false;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
s = Math.ceil((o-i)/(1+2*i));
e = (g+o-i)/(1+2*i);
if (i%3-1) for(var j = s; j < e; j++) ar[i + j + 2*i*j-o] = false;
}
} else {
for(var i = 1; i < (g-1)/3; i++) ar[1+3*i] = false;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
e = (g-i)/(1+2*i);
if (i%3-1) for(var j = i; j < e; j++) ar[i + j + 2*i*j] = false;
}
}
for(var i = 0; i < g; i++) ar[i] && r.push((i+o)*2+1);
return r;
}
var cs = n <= 1e6 ? 7500
: n <= 1e7 ? 60000
: 100000, // chunk size
cc = ~~(n/cs), // chunk count
xs = n % cs, // excess after last chunk
ar = Array(cs/2), // array used as map
result = [];
for(var i = 0; i < cc; i++) result = primeSieve(cs/2,i*cs/2,result);
result = xs ? primeSieve(xs/2,cc*cs/2,result) : result;
result[0] *=2;
return result;
}
var primes = [];
console.time("primes");
primes = findPrimes(1000000000);
console.timeEnd("primes");
console.log(primes.length);
Here I present a multithreaded and slightly improved version of the above algorithm. It utilizes all available threads on your device and resolves all 50,847,534 primes up to 1e9 (1 Billion) in the ballpark of 1.3 seconds on my trash AMD FX-8370 8 core desktop.
While there exists some very sophisticated sublinear sieves, I believe the modified Segmented Sieve of Sundaram could only be stretced this far to being linear in time complexity. Which is not bad.
class Threadable extends Function {
constructor(f){
super("...as",`return ${f.toString()}.apply(this,as)`);
}
spawn(...as){
var code = `self.onmessage = m => self.postMessage(${this.toString()}.apply(null,m.data));`,
blob = new Blob([code], {type: "text/javascript"}),
wrkr = new Worker(window.URL.createObjectURL(blob));
return new Promise((v,x) => ( wrkr.onmessage = m => (v(m.data), wrkr.terminate())
, wrkr.onerror = e => (x(e.message), wrkr.terminate())
, wrkr.postMessage(as)
));
}
}
function pi(n){
function scan(start,end,tid){
function sieve(g,o){
var t = (Math.sqrt(4+8*(g+o))-2)/4,
e = 0,
s = 0,
a = new Uint8Array(g),
c = 0,
l = o ? (g+o-1)/3
: (g-1)/3;
if (o) {
for(var i = Math.ceil((o-1)/3); i < l; i++) a[1+3*i-o] = 0x01;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
if (i%3-1) {
s = Math.ceil((o-i)/(1+2*i));
e = (g+o-i)/(1+2*i);
for(var j = s; j < e; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j-o] = 0x01;
}
}
} else {
for(var i = 1; i < l; i++) a[1+3*i] = 0x01;
for(var i = 2; i < t; i++){
if (i%3-1){
e = (g-i)/(1+2*i);
for(var j = i; j < e; j++) a[i + j + 2*i*j] = 0x01;
}
}
}
for (var i = 0; i < g; i++) !a[i] && c++;
return c;
}
end % 2 && end--;
start % 2 && start--;
var n = end - start,
cs = n < 2e6 ? 1e4 :
n < 2e7 ? 2e5 :
4.5e5 , // Math.floor(3*n/1e3), // chunk size
cc = Math.floor(n/cs), // chunk count
xs = n % cs, // excess after last chunk
pc = 0;
for(var i = 0; i < cc; i++) pc += sieve(cs/2,(start+i*cs)/2);
xs && (pc += sieve(xs/2,(start+cc*cs)/2));
return pc;
}
var tc = navigator.hardwareConcurrency,
xs = n % tc,
cs = (n-xs) / tc,
st = new Threadable(scan),
ps = Array.from( {length:tc}
, (_,i) => i ? st.spawn(i*cs+xs,(i+1)*cs+xs,i)
: st.spawn(0,cs+xs,i)
);
return Promise.all(ps);
}
var n = 1e9,
count;
console.time("primes");
pi(n).then(cs => ( count = cs.reduce((p,c) => p+c)
, console.timeEnd("primes")
, console.log(count)
)
)
.catch(e => console.log(`Error: ${e}`));
So this is as far as I could take the Sieve of Sundaram.

A number is a prime if it is not divisible by other primes lower than the number in question.
So this builds up a primes array. Tests each new odd candidate n for division against existing found primes lower than n. As an optimization it does not consider even numbers and prepends 2 as a final step.
var primes = [];
for(var n=3;n<=100;n+=2) {
if(primes.every(function(prime){return n%prime!=0})) {
primes.push(n);
}
}
primes.unshift(2);

To find prime numbers between 0 to n. You just have to check if a number x is getting divisible by any number between 0 - (square root of x). If we pass n and to find all prime numbers between 0 and n, logic can be implemented as -
function findPrimeNums(n)
{
var x= 3,j,i=2,
primeArr=[2],isPrime;
for (;x<=n;x+=2){
j = (int) Math.sqrt (x);
isPrime = true;
for (i = 2; i <= j; i++)
{
if (x % i == 0){
isPrime = false;
break;
}
}
if(isPrime){
primeArr.push(x);
}
}
return primeArr;
}

var n=100;
var counter = 0;
var primeNumbers = "Prime Numbers: ";
for(var i=2; i<=n; ++i)
{
counter=0;
for(var j=2; j<=n; ++j)
{
if(i>=j && i%j == 0)
{
++counter;
}
}
if(counter == 1)
{
primeNumbers = primeNumbers + i + " ";
}
}
console.log(primeNumbers);

Luchian's answer gives you a link to the standard technique for finding primes.
A less efficient, but simpler approach is to turn your existing code into a nested loop. Observe that you are dividing by 2,3,4,5,6 and so on ... and turn that into a loop.
Given that this is homework, and given that the aim of the homework is to help you learn basic programming, a solution that is simple, correct but somewhat inefficient should be fine.

Using recursion combined with the square root rule from here, checks whether a number is prime or not:
function isPrime(num){
// An integer is prime if it is not divisible by any prime less than or equal to its square root
var squareRoot = parseInt(Math.sqrt(num));
var primeCountUp = function(divisor){
if(divisor > squareRoot) {
// got to a point where the divisor is greater than
// the square root, therefore it is prime
return true;
}
else if(num % divisor === 0) {
// found a result that divides evenly, NOT prime
return false;
}
else {
// keep counting
return primeCountUp(++divisor);
}
};
// start # 2 because everything is divisible by 1
return primeCountUp(2);
}

You can try this method also, this one is basic but easy to understand:
var tw = 2, th = 3, fv = 5, se = 7;
document.write(tw + "," + th + ","+ fv + "," + se + ",");
for(var n = 0; n <= 100; n++)
{
if((n % tw !== 0) && (n % th !==0) && (n % fv !==0 ) && (n % se !==0))
{
if (n == 1)
{
continue;
}
document.write(n +",");
}
}

I recently came up with a one-line solution that accomplishes exactly this for a JS challenge on Scrimba (below).
ES6+
const getPrimes=num=>Array(num-1).fill().map((e,i)=>2+i).filter((e,i,a)=>a.slice(0,i).every(x=>e%x!==0));
< ES6
function getPrimes(num){return ",".repeat(num).slice(0,-1).split(',').map(function(e,i){return i+1}).filter(function(e){return e>1}).filter(function(x){return ",".repeat(x).slice(0,-1).split(',').map(function(f,j){return j}).filter(function(e){return e>1}).every(function(e){return x%e!==0})})};
This is the logic explained:
First, the function builds an array of all numbers leading up to the desired number (in this case, 100) via the .repeat() function using the desired number (100) as the repeater argument and then mapping the array to the indexes+1 to get the range of numbers from 0 to that number (0-100). A bit of string splitting and joining magic going on here. I'm happy to explain this step further if you like.
We exclude 0 and 1 from the array as they should not be tested for prime, lest they give a false positive. Neither are prime. We do this using .filter() for only numbers > 1 (≥ 2).
Now, we filter our new array of all integers between 2 and the desired number (100) for only prime numbers. To filter for prime numbers only, we use some of the same magic from our first step. We use .filter() and .repeat() once again to create a new array from 2 to each value from our new array of numbers. For each value's new array, we check to see if any of the numbers ≥ 2 and < that number are factors of the number. We can do this using the .every() method paired with the modulo operator % to check if that number has any remainders when divided by any of those values between 2 and itself. If each value has remainders (x%e!==0), the condition is met for all values from 2 to that number (but not including that number, i.e.: [2,99]) and we can say that number is prime. The filter functions returns all prime numbers to the uppermost return, thereby returning the list of prime values between 2 and the passed value.
As an example, using one of these functions I've added above, returns the following:
getPrimes(100);
// => [2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,89,97]

Here's a fast way to calculate primes in JavaScript, based on the previous prime value.
function nextPrime(value) {
if (value > 2) {
var i, q;
do {
i = 3;
value += 2;
q = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(value));
while (i <= q && value % i) {
i += 2;
}
} while (i <= q);
return value;
}
return value === 2 ? 3 : 2;
}
Test
var value = 0, result = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
value = nextPrime(value);
result.push(value);
}
console.log("Primes:", result);
Output
Primes: [ 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29 ]
It is faster than other alternatives published here, because:
It aligns the loop limit to an integer, which works way faster;
It uses a shorter iteration loop, skipping even numbers.
It can give you the first 100,000 primes in about 130ms, or the first 1m primes in about 4 seconds.
function nextPrime(value) {
if (value > 2) {
var i, q;
do {
i = 3;
value += 2;
q = Math.floor(Math.sqrt(value));
while (i <= q && value % i) {
i += 2;
}
} while (i <= q);
return value;
}
return value === 2 ? 3 : 2;
}
var value, result = [];
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
value = nextPrime(value);
result.push(value);
}
display("Primes: " + result.join(', '));
function display(msg) {
document.body.insertAdjacentHTML(
"beforeend",
"<p>" + msg + "</p>"
);
}
UPDATE
A modern, efficient way of doing it, using prime-lib:
import {generatePrimes, stopWhen} from 'prime-lib';
const p = generatePrimes(); //=> infinite prime generator
const i = stopWhen(p, a => a > 100); //=> Iterable<number>
console.log(...i); //=> 2 3 5 7 11 ... 89 97

<code>
<script language="javascript">
var n=prompt("Enter User Value")
var x=1;
if(n==0 || n==1) x=0;
for(i=2;i<n;i++)
{
if(n%i==0)
{
x=0;
break;
}
}
if(x==1)
{
alert(n +" "+" is prime");
}
else
{
alert(n +" "+" is not prime");
}
</script>

Sieve of Eratosthenes. its bit look but its simple and it works!
function count_prime(arg) {
arg = typeof arg !== 'undefined' ? arg : 20; //default value
var list = [2]
var list2 = [0,1]
var real_prime = []
counter = 2
while (counter < arg ) {
if (counter % 2 !== 0) {
list.push(counter)
}
counter++
}
for (i = 0; i < list.length - 1; i++) {
var a = list[i]
for (j = 0; j < list.length - 1; j++) {
if (list[j] % a === 0 && list[j] !== a) {
list[j] = false; // assign false to non-prime numbers
}
}
if (list[i] !== false) {
real_prime.push(list[i]); // save all prime numbers in new array
}
}
}
window.onload=count_prime(100);

And this famous code from a famous JS Ninja
var isPrime = n => Array(Math.ceil(Math.sqrt(n)+1)).fill().map((e,i)=>i).slice(2).every(m => n%m);
console.log(Array(100).fill().map((e,i)=>i+1).slice(1).filter(isPrime));

A list built using the new features of ES6, especially with generator.
Go to https://codepen.io/arius/pen/wqmzGp made in Catalan language for classes with my students. I hope you find it useful.
function* Primer(max) {
const infinite = !max && max !== 0;
const re = /^.?$|^(..+?)\1+$/;
let current = 1;
while (infinite || max-- ) {
if(!re.test('1'.repeat(current)) == true) yield current;
current++
};
};
let [...list] = Primer(100);
console.log(list);

Here's the very simple way to calculate primes between a given range(1 to limit).
Simple Solution:
public static void getAllPrimeNumbers(int limit) {
System.out.println("Printing prime number from 1 to " + limit);
for(int number=2; number<=limit; number++){
//***print all prime numbers upto limit***
if(isPrime(number)){
System.out.println(number);
}
}
}
public static boolean isPrime(int num) {
if (num == 0 || num == 1) {
return false;
}
if (num == 2) {
return true;
}
for (int i = 2; i <= num / 2; i++) {
if (num % i == 0) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}

A version without any loop. Use this against any array you have. ie.,
[1,2,3...100].filter(x=>isPrime(x));
const isPrime = n => {
if(n===1){
return false;
}
if([2,3,5,7].includes(n)){
return true;
}
return n%2!=0 && n%3!=0 && n%5!=0 && n%7!=0;
}

Here's my stab at it.
Change the initial i=0 from 0 to whatever you want, and the the second i<100 from 100 to whatever to get primes in a different range.
for(var i=0; i<100000; i++){
var devisableCount = 2;
for(var x=0; x<=i/2; x++){
if (devisableCount > 3) {
break;
}
if(i !== 1 && i !== 0 && i !== x){
if(i%x === 0){
devisableCount++;
}
}
}
if(devisableCount === 3){
console.log(i);
}
}
I tried it with 10000000 - it takes some time but appears to be accurate.

Here are the Brute-force iterative method and Sieve of Eratosthenes method to find prime numbers upto n. The performance of the second method is better than first in terms of time complexity
Brute-force iterative
function findPrime(n) {
var res = [2],
isNotPrime;
for (var i = 3; i < n; i++) {
isNotPrime = res.some(checkDivisorExist);
if ( !isNotPrime ) {
res.push(i);
}
}
function checkDivisorExist (j) {
return i % j === 0;
}
return res;
}
Sieve of Eratosthenes method
function seiveOfErasthones (n) {
var listOfNum =range(n),
i = 2;
// CHeck only until the square of the prime is less than number
while (i*i < n && i < n) {
listOfNum = filterMultiples(listOfNum, i);
i++;
}
return listOfNum;
function range (num) {
var res = [];
for (var i = 2; i <= num; i++) {
res.push(i);
}
return res;
}
function filterMultiples (list, x) {
return list.filter(function (item) {
// Include numbers smaller than x as they are already prime
return (item <= x) || (item > x && item % x !== 0);
});
}
}

You can use this for any size of array of prime numbers. Hope this helps
function prime() {
var num = 2;
var body = document.getElementById("solution");
var len = arguments.length;
var flag = true;
for (j = 0; j < len; j++) {
for (i = num; i < arguments[j]; i++) {
if (arguments[j] % i == 0) {
body.innerHTML += arguments[j] + " False <br />";
flag = false;
break;
} else {
flag = true;
}
}
if (flag) {
body.innerHTML += arguments[j] + " True <br />";
}
}
}
var data = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10];
prime.apply(null, data);
<div id="solution">
</div>

public static void main(String[] args) {
int m = 100;
int a[] =new int[m];
for (int i=2; i<m; i++)
for (int j=0; j<m; j+=i)
a[j]++;
for (int i=0; i<m; i++)
if (a[i]==1) System.out.println(i);
}

Using Sieve of Eratosthenes, source on Rosettacode
fastest solution: https://repl.it/#caub/getPrimes-bench
function getPrimes(limit) {
if (limit < 2) return [];
var sqrtlmt = limit**.5 - 2;
var nums = Array.from({length: limit-1}, (_,i)=>i+2);
for (var i = 0; i <= sqrtlmt; i++) {
var p = nums[i]
if (p) {
for (var j = p * p - 2; j < nums.length; j += p)
nums[j] = 0;
}
}
return nums.filter(x => x); // return non 0 values
}
document.body.innerHTML = `<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap">${getPrimes(100).join(', ')}</pre>`;
// for fun, this fantasist regexp way (very inefficient):
// Array.from({length:101}, (_,i)=>i).filter(n => n>1&&!/^(oo+)\1+$/.test('o'.repeat(n))

Why try deleting by 4 (and 6,8,10,12) if we've already tried deleting by 2 ?
Why try deleting by 9 if we've already tried deleting by 3 ?
Why try deleting by 11 if 11 * 11 = 121 which is greater than 100 ?
Why try deleting any odd number by 2 at all?
Why try deleting any even number above 2 by anything at all?
Eliminate the dead tests and you'll get yourself a good code, testing for primes below 100.
And your code is very far from being the worst code ever. Many many others would try dividing 100 by 99. But the absolute champion would generate all products of 2..96 with 2..96 to test whether 97 is among them. That one really is astonishingly inefficient.
Sieve of Eratosthenes of course is much better, and you can have one -- under 100 -- with no arrays of booleans (and no divisions too!):
console.log(2)
var m3 = 9, m5 = 25, m7 = 49, i = 3
for( ; i < 100; i += 2 )
{
if( i != m3 && i != m5 && i != m7) console.log(i)
else
{
if( i == m3 ) m3 += 6
if( i == m5 ) m5 += 10
if( i == m7 ) m7 += 14
}
} "DONE"
This is the sieve of Eratosthenes, were we skip over the composites - and that's what this code is doing. The timing of generation of composites and of skipping over them (by checking for equality) is mixed into one timeline. The usual sieve first generates composites and marks them in an array, then sweeps the array. Here the two stages are mashed into one, to avoid having to use any array at all (this only works because we know the top limit's square root - 10 - in advance and use only primes below it, viz. 3,5,7 - with 2's multiples, i.e. evens, implicitly skipped over in advance).
In other words this is an incremental sieve of Eratosthenes and m3, m5, m7 form an implicit priority queue of the multiples of primes 3, 5, and 7.

I was searching how to find out prime number and went through above code which are too long. I found out a new easy solution for prime number and add them using filter. Kindly suggest me if there is any mistake in my code as I am a beginner.
function sumPrimes(num) {
let newNum = [];
for(let i = 2; i <= num; i++) {
newNum.push(i)
}
for(let i in newNum) {
newNum = newNum.filter(item => item == newNum[i] || item % newNum[i] !== 0)
}
return newNum.reduce((a,b) => a+b)
}
sumPrimes(10);

Here is an efficient, short solution using JS generators. JSfiddle
// Consecutive integers
let nats = function* (n) {
while (true) yield n++
}
// Wrapper generator
let primes = function* () {
yield* sieve(primes(), nats(2))
}
// The sieve itself; only tests primes up to sqrt(n)
let sieve = function* (pg, ng) {
yield ng.next().value;
let n, p = pg.next().value;
while ((n = ng.next().value) < p * p) yield n;
yield* sieve(pg, (function* () {
while (n = ng.next().value) if (n % p) yield n
})())
}
// Longest prefix of stream where some predicate holds
let take = function* (vs, fn) {
let nx;
while (!(nx = vs.next()).done && fn(nx.value)) yield nx.value
}
document.querySelectorAll('dd')[0].textContent =
// Primes smaller than 100
[...take(primes(), x => x < 100)].join(', ')
<dl>
<dt>Primes under 100</dt>
<dd></dd>
</dl>

First, change your inner code for another loop (for and while) so you can repeat the same code for different values.
More specific for your problem, if you want to know if a given n is prime, you need to divide it for all values between 2 and sqrt(n). If any of the modules is 0, it is not prime.
If you want to find all primes, you can speed it and check n only by dividing by the previously found primes. Another way of speeding the process is the fact that, apart from 2 and 3, all the primes are 6*k plus or less 1.

It would behoove you, if you're going to use any of the gazillion algorithms that you're going to be presented with in this thread, to learn to memoize some of them.
See Interview question : What is the fastest way to generate prime number recursively?

Use following function to find out prime numbers :
function primeNumbers() {
var p
var n = document.primeForm.primeText.value
var d
var x
var prime
var displayAll = 2 + " "
for (p = 3; p <= n; p = p + 2) {
x = Math.sqrt(p)
prime = 1
for (d = 3; prime && (d <= x); d = d + 2)
if ((p % d) == 0) prime = 0
else prime = 1
if (prime == 1) {
displayAll = displayAll + p + " "
}
}
document.primeForm.primeArea.value = displayAll
}

Inserting into a number string

Have the function DashInsert(num) insert dashes ('-') between each two odd numbers in num. For example: if num is 454793 the output should be 4547-9-3. Don't count zero as an odd number.
Here is my code (not working). When I run it, I get the same response as an infinite loop where I have to kill the page but I can't see why. I know there are ways to do this by keeping it as a string but now I'm wondering why my way isn't working. Thanks...
function DashInsert(num) {
num = num.split("");
for (i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if (num[i - 1] % 2 != 0 && num[i] % 2 != 0) {
num.splice(i, 0, "-");
}
}
num = num.join("");
return num;
}

Using num.splice you are inserting new entries into the array, therefor increasing its length – and that makes the value of i “running behind” the increasing length of the array, so the break condition is never met.
And apart from that, on the next iteration after inserting a -, num[i-1] will be that - character, and therefor you are practically trying to check if '-' % 2 != 0 … that makes little sense as well.
So, when you insert a - into the array, you have to increase i by one as well – that will a) account for the length of the array having increased by one, and also it will check the next digit after the - on the next iteration:
function DashInsert(num) {
num = num.split("");
for (i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if (num[i - 1] % 2 != 0 && num[i] % 2 != 0) {
num.splice(i, 0, "-");
i++; // <- this is the IMPORTANT part!
}
}
num = num.join("");
return num;
}
alert(DashInsert("454793"));
http://jsfiddle.net/37wA9/

Once you insert a dash -, the if statement is checking this '-'%2 != 0 which is always true and thus inserts another dash, ad infinitum.
Here's one way to do it with replace using a regex and function:
function DashInsert(n) {
var f = function(m,i,s) { return m&s[i+1]&1 ? m+'-' : m; };
return String(n).replace(/\d/g,f);
}
DashInsert(454793) // "4547-9-3"

When you are adding a dash, this dash will be processed as a number on the next iteration. You need to forward one step.
function DashInsert(num) {
var num = num.split("");
for (var i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if ((num[i - 1] % 2 != 0) && (num[i] % 2 != 0)) {
num.splice(i, 0, "-");
i++; // This is the only thing that needs changing
}
}
num = num.join("");
return num;
}

It's because there are cases when you use the % operator on dash '-' itself, e.g. right after you splice a dash into the array.
You can correct this behavior by using a clone array.
function DashInsert(num) {
num = num.split("");
var clone = num.slice(0);
var offset = 0;
for (i = 1; i < num.length; i++) {
if (num[i - 1] % 2 != 0 && num[i] % 2 != 0) {
clone.splice(i + offset, 0, "-");
offset++;
}
}
return clone.join("");
}
alert(DashInsert("45739"));
Output: 45-7-3-9
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/262Bf/

To complement the great answers already given, I would like to share an alternative implementation, that doesn't modify arrays in-place:
function DashInsert(num) {
var characters = num.split("");
var numbers = characters.map(function(chr) {
return parseInt(chr, 10);
});
var withDashes = numbers.reduce(function(result, current) {
var lastNumber = result[result.length - 1];
if(lastNumber == null || current % 2 === 0 || lastNumber % 2 === 0) {
return result.concat(current);
} else {
return result.concat("-", current);
}
}, []);
return withDashes.join("");
}
It's longer, but IMHO reveals the intention better, and avoids the original issue.

finding sum of prime numbers under 250

var sum = 0
for (i = 0; i < 250; i++) {
function checkIfPrime() {
for (factor = 2; factor < i; factor++) {
if (i % factor = 0) {
sum = sum;
}
else {
sum += factor;
}
}
}
}
document.write(sum);
I am trying to check for the sum of all the prime numbers under 250. I am getting an error saying that i is invalid in the statement if (i % factor = 0) I know was creating in the original for statement, but is there any way to reference it in the if statement?

With the prime computation, have you considered using Sieve of Eratosthenes? This is a much more elegant way of determining primes, and, summing the result is simple.
var sieve = new Array();
var maxcount = 250;
var maxsieve = 10000;
// Build the Sieve, marking all numbers as possible prime.
for (var i = 2; i < maxsieve; i++)
sieve[i] = 1;
// Use the Sieve to find primes and count them as they are found.
var primes = [ ];
var sum = 0;
for (var prime = 2; prime < maxsieve && primes.length < maxcount; prime++)
{
if (!sieve[prime]) continue;
primes.push(prime); // found a prime, save it
sum += prime;
for (var i = prime * 2; i < maxsieve; i += prime)
sieve[i] = 0; // mark all multiples as non prime
}
document.getElementById("result").value =
"primes: " + primes.join(" ") + "\n"
+ "count: " + primes.length + "\n"
+ "sum: " + sum + "\n";
#result {
width:100%;
height:180px
}
<textarea id="result">
</textarea>
(EDIT) With the updated algorithm, there are now two max involved:
maxcount is the maximum number of prime numbers you wish to find
maxsieve is a guess of sieve large enough to contain maxcount primes
You will have to validate this by actually checking the real count since there are two terminating conditions (1) we hit the limit of our sieve and cannot find any more primes, or (2) we actually found what we're looking for.
If you were to increase the number to numbers much greater than 250, than the Sieve no longer becomes viable as it would be consume great deals of memory. Anyhow, I think this all makes sense right? You really need to play with the Sieve yourself at this point than rely on my interpretation of it.

You can equally use this
let sum = 0;
let num = 250;
for (let i = 2; i < num; i++) {
let isPrime = true;
for (let j = 2; j < i; j++) {
if (i % j === 0) {
isPrime = false;
}
}
if (isPrime) {
sum += i;
}
}
console.log(sum);

i % factor === 0
Use === for comparison. = is for assignment. Yeah I said triple equals. Type coercion is annoying.

You need a == or ===: if (i % factor == 0)

Here's a pretty decent way to do it. It's not as advanced as the sieve but it's a decent starting point. NOTE: I'm using ES6 syntax.
/*
* Sum the first n prime numbers
*
* #param n (integer)
* #return integer
*
*/
function sumNprimes(n){
const arr = [];
let i = 2
while (arr.length < n) {
if (isPrime(i)) {
arr.push(i)
}
i++
}
return arr.reduce( (x,y) => x+y );
/*
* #param n (integer)
* #return Boolean
*
*/
function isPrime(n) {
if ( n < 2 ) {
return false
}
for ( let i = 2; i <= Math.sqrt(n); i++ ) {
if ( n % i === 0 ) {
return false;
}
}
return true
}
}

So i had to face a similar challenge and here is my solution, i hope you find it helpful:
function sumPrimes(num) {
// determine if a number is prime
function isPrime(n) {
if (n === 2) return true;
if (n === 3) return true;
if (n % 2 === 0) return false;
if (n % 3 === 0) return false;
var i = 5;
var w = 2;
while (i * i <= n) {
if (n % i === 0) {
return false;
}
i += w;
w = 6 - w;
}
return true;
}
// subtract 1 for 'not being prime' in my context
var sum = isPrime(num) ? num - 1 : -1;
for (var x = 0; x < num; x++) {
if (isPrime(x) === true) {
sum += x;
}
}
return sum;
}

As per the "Sieve of Eratosthenes", I have implemented the code using JS:
function isPrime(n){
return ((n/2 === 1 || n/3 === 1 || n/5 === 1 || n/7 === 1)?true:(n%2===0 || n%3 === 0 || n%5 ===0 || n%7 === 0)?false:true);
};
var val = 250;
let outArr = [];
for(let i=2;i<val;i++){
if(isPrime(i)){
outArr.push(i);
}
}
console.log("Prime number between 0 - "+val+" : "+outArr.join(","));

Here is a simple way of looping through array and implementing the sieve of Eratosthenes...
function sumPrimes(num) {
var t, v = [],
w = [],
x = [],
y = [],
z = 0;
//enumerating Vee array starts at 2 as first prime number
for (let a = 2; a <= num; a++) {
v.push(a)
}
//creating a moving loop by splicing its first index
for (let i = 0; i < v.length; i) { //ensure all items spliced
t = v[i]; // t as prime to be removed from Vee array
x.push(t); // x storage of primes
z += t // total of peculiar primes
w.push(v.splice(i, 1)) //tested to move all one by one
// prompt(v) //tested that v loses its v[i] every iteration
//= now trying to remove others using remainder (%) vs prime t
for (let vi in v) {
v[vi] % t === 0 ? y.push(v.splice(vi, 1)) : ""; //recursive removal of composite items by prime t
}
}
return z // returns sum of primes
}
sumPrimes(250);
You generate the array beginning with 2 as first prime,
You sieve the array removing items by the remainder of prime using % === 0.
The you loop through the remaining array by using the next prime until the last remaining prime is pushed to the prime arrays. Add all primes to get the Sum.

If the question is purely academical, earlier answers are better suited.
The example below uses modern libraries, in case you need an efficient and elegant solution.
import {generatePrimes} from 'prime-lib';
import {from, reduce, takeWhile} from 'rxjs';
from(generatePrimes())
.pipe(takeWhile(p => p < 250), reduce((a, c) => a + c))
.subscribe(sum => {
// sum = 5830
});
Performance-wise, it will take significantly less than 1ms.
How would it affect the code if I wanted say the sum of the first 250 prime numbers instead of the prime numbers under 250?
You would just replace takeWhile(p => p < 250) with take(250):
import {generatePrimes} from 'prime-lib';
import {from, reduce, take} from 'rxjs';
from(generatePrimes())
.pipe(take(250), reduce((a, c) => a + c))
.subscribe(sum => {
// sum = 182109
});
P.S. I am the author of prime-lib.